oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I would say that we just can't call in our guns like they did. However, what they managed would probably make most leaners very happy. I have been communicating with an Aussie friend today about this and am pretty sure he is unhappy right now with me. I said some nasty things about Australia and the man, John Howard, who did their "buy back". I say we can't do what they did because we have a written Constitution and they don't.

Here is a rather long thing about whether we can do it or not.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/

cold iron Loc: White House

The countries that did take guns had crime rates go way up. The News Media never report that. I will give them all my ammo before my give them my gun.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

If someone would only inform the American people how many lives are saved every year by law abiding citizens that own and used guns to save lives and prevent crime, even more people would own a gun than do today.

The American people will never allow the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, at least not without an ensuing war.

The problem here is that those who wish to ens***e the American people have indoctrinated so many American people with lies, that those indoctrinated liberals and progressives can't think for themselves, and not only won't search for good reasons for the American people to own guns, but when confronted with those facts simply ignore them and refuse to believe what those actual facts and statistics prove.

The problem with those demanding laws that ban guns for law abiding citizens is ignorance and stupidity, ignorance for not knowing the facts that show why gun ownership is good for the American people, and stupidity for not having the sense and curiosity to search out all the facts about guns and their effects on our society, weighing the good with the bad, and finding out which prevails the most.

Gun ownership is the definition of freedom, which that gun ownership also ensures for the American people, and the only way to ban guns is to ens***e those American people, which is really the agenda for those leading the stupid and ignorant to ban guns, and no matter how denigrating it is to those who are always just followers, those are the real and true facts, and if guns are ever banned in the USA, the American people will quickly loose all their rights and freedoms one at a time, and will have no recourse to prevent it.

Lets hope that we are never forced to find out if my prognosises are true or not.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

A total ban on firearms would be un-Constitutional, not because of the erroneous t***slation of the 2nd amendment, but because it infringes on other articles. The 2nd amendment does NOT guarantee that all citizens have an absolute right to own firearms, if it did...............every convicted felon is having their Constitutional rights violated by every State. The amendment dos NOT guarantee that citizens may own any type of weapon they please, the USSC verified that the assault weapons ban was Constitutional.

The main reason why a ban would fail in the US is - there are just too many damn weapons, and it is logistically impossible to do a search and seizure in every crook and cranny in the country........................not to mention the inevitability of 1000's of firefights. That being said, the 2nd amendment clearly outlines the rationale for the amendment, which is the security of the States. Not the security of our homes or businesses or persons, the security of the States...............against Federal takeover. That amendment also authorizes States to form M*****as, but it's m*****a's Constitutional guarantee of firearms is predicated on it being well regulated. No regulation does NOT equal well regulated.

No one has any idea exactly how many weapons are in the US, or where they're located, and there is no way to find out - unless they're willing to search every conceivable hiding place in the whole country, including using metal detectors on every square inch of ground. A total weapons ban would be impossible to enforce. A ban on high powered and/or high capacity weapons would be impossible to enforce. Calling for the voluntary surrender of banned weapons is equally stupid - those who would be inclined to do so - don't own such weapons.

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

This thread leads to once again interpreting the words of the second amendment; there being a first part and a second part. I ignore the first part about m*****as, and land hard on the second part where citizens can keep and bear arms. All citizens can be considered to be m*****amen when they are called upon to defend their land, and, then, to keep and bear arms is to own them, and to use them as well.

So any try at confiscation will be met with Congressional resistance and Constitutional litigation immediately, and heavy citizen resistance as well.

This is yet another attempt to divide the nation and create turmoil by Lefties. It has little to do with the reality of gun crimes, since the Lefties know well that guns save far more lives and horrors of wounds or rapes than they lose in madmen's massacres, although they suppress that fact as hard as they can. Ever notice that newspapers do not report much on crimes prevented by the potential victims having a weapon to ward off the intruder?

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

That fact was realized by John Lott some years ago, so he set about to gather some numbers on the survival value of guns. Unfortunately, he didn't do what he claimed to do, which was to go to a huge sample of police departments and read the crime reports. I believe he claimed to go to over 2,300 departments, but actually went to fewer, perhaps only a thousand, or even less! His analysis showed that, if you project his findings to the entire nation, over 3 million criminal attacks per year were thwarted by gun owners, quite a number of which were potential rapes and murders. He was subjected to vicious counterattacks and ultimately was silenced by the Leftwing attack mob's actions.

His number may be off a bit, bit it is my belief that the 3 million prevented crimes is generally correct. And if only 1% of these crimes were possible rapes or murders, that would be around 30,000 really violent crimes thwarted per year. You can see why this line of research has been roundly blocked and derided by the gun h**ers. They want to prevent perhaps the current 10,000 or so gun crimes per year, not counting suicides. So the guns have about 3 to 1 advantage at least, and if you take away the guns, the numbers go very badly for the people; add the two numbers and you get potentially 40,000 violent crimes per year. Especially when criminals will still be armed to the teeth. Personally, I believe that his study should be repeated with unbiased researchers to confirm or deny his contentions, and should cover the entire US.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Today I read a good one about Lott. It came from Stink --uh, uh Think Progress and anybody who knows anything about Stink Progress knows that most of what they say is much like what Media Matters and other sites paid for by George Soros would be saying. Whoops, I forgot to mention Center for American Progress. Here is the thing I read at Think Progress.

https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/

Of course, as I said, the people at Stink Prog don't like to have people reading things like what Lott says. I put this here just so you could know what the folks at Stink Prog thing.

cold iron Loc: White House

I see no report about the massive murder done my Bill Clinton at Waco where he had 78 people shot as they tried to exit a burning building, mostly kids and women.
This is the worst mass shooting in America, not LV.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

No, because the t***h is there have been many multiple victim k*****gs in Australia since the did the gun buy back. Those who sold their guns to their government used the money to buy better guns.

cold iron Loc: White House

Hummm, don't think one can buy a gun down under.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Well then, how do the bad guys have them?? There's the crux of the gun argument there, isn't it??

My info on that came from an interview with an Australian bend on dispelling the myth of how the gun laws in Australia stopped k*****gs in Australia. Apparently k*****gs involving four or less deaths are not taken into account when stats on mass k*****gs and gun k*****gs are reported down there.

cold iron Loc: White House

lol, just think for a second....they never turned theirs in, simple.

This will happen everywhere this is done. There is a better chance of k*****g every cockroach in the world then taking every gun.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Well of course, but this Australian said that those who did, used the money to buy better ones. I'd imagine that most of the buy back involved old, trashed out guns; most probably kept the good ones.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

My Aussie friend told me years ago that they didn't even try to get all the guns. They just outlawed certain long guns and tried to get as many handguns as they could with the buyback method and have allowed certain people to keep their guns. I think that if most people knew the kinds of critters that run wild in Australia they would see why farmers and others like them need their guns. My friend still has his guns but supposedly it is because he lives too near the wild parts of the place.

A gun buy back will never work here especially with those who keep them for hunting and, of course, those who have them to guarantee safety in their homes. I am one of the latter people and won't give mine up easily. I do not have anything like the numbers Paddock had although fire power is important when people try to break into one's home.

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

Thanks for the reference oldroy. I have been somewhat aware of Lott's difficulties for some time. I alluded to them in my post, but I do believe he was onto something in his contention that guns stopped many robberies, rapes, and murders each year. That his findings were considered unreliable was the basis for my suggestion that a new study by an unbiased group (hard to find, however!) should be performed to settle the issue.

As an aside, I have posted on my side fence gate the following: "Never mind the dogs, beware of the owner"! Here in Richmond, we have had far too many shootings and breakins over the years all over the town, so I have enough weaponry to repel a gang, a little dog that yaps shrilly, a big dog that can be very intimidating, and enough alarms and lighting to know when they are close.